i586-unknown-linux-gnu?

i586-unknown-linux-gnu?

[Zoltan Hidvegi]

The new autoconf indentifies linux as linux-gnu.  Unfortunately that can
break startup scripts depending on $OSTYPE.  I'd like to know what do you
think about changing OSTYPE from linux to linux-gnu.  We can edit the new
config.guess to get the original OSTYPE but that would disagree with the
GNU standard names.  I really do not understand why FSF is so annoyed with
i586-unknown-linux.  It would be more logical to call elf linux with
libc.so.5 to linux as before, and linux-gnu can mean linux with the new GNU
libc.so.6.

Zoltan

Re: i586-unknown-linux-gnu?

[Zefram]

>The new autoconf indentifies linux as linux-gnu.  Unfortunately that can
>break startup scripts depending on $OSTYPE.  I'd like to know what do you
>think about changing OSTYPE from linux to linux-gnu.

Oh dear.  I was hoping that they'd learn from the reaction to "lignux"
when they modified Emacs' configure code.  ("They" == RMS, of course.)
Having checked the new config.sub code (which is too pushy and will
break several of my scripts), I recommend that we retain the old name.
I will certainly be doing so in all autoconfed packages that I
maintain.

I think it's quite amusing that they had to add special-case code to
accept things like "i386-linux-gnu", which had a different
interpretation under the old system.  Mr Foot, meet Mr Hole.

>                     I really do not understand why FSF is so annoyed with
>i586-unknown-linux.

RMS is annoyed.  He thinks that Linux users are unaware of the
importance of GNU software in the system they are using, and thinks
that changing the name of the operating system will help.  He describes
Linux systems as "Linux-based GNU" systems.  I'd expected him to stop
when the Hurd was released, and he had a system of his own to call GNU,
but it seems that he wants to take credit for two OSes now.

>                     It would be more logical to call elf linux with
>libc.so.5 to linux as before, and linux-gnu can mean linux with the new GNU
>libc.so.6.

Not really.  The distinction between "linuxaout" and "linux" (or
"linuxelf") is a distinction of binary format.  libc6 will not change
that.  It would be most logical to stick to the existing names.

-zefram

Re: i586-unknown-linux-gnu?

[I. Dwayne Koonce]

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Zefram wrote:

> >The new autoconf indentifies linux as linux-gnu.  Unfortunately that can
> >break startup scripts depending on $OSTYPE.  I'd like to know what do you
> >think about changing OSTYPE from linux to linux-gnu.
> 
> Oh dear.  I was hoping that they'd learn from the reaction to "lignux"
> when they modified Emacs' configure code.  ("They" == RMS, of course.)
> Having checked the new config.sub code (which is too pushy and will
> break several of my scripts), I recommend that we retain the old name.
> I will certainly be doing so in all autoconfed packages that I
> maintain.

I agree--definitely keep the old name.  This periodic Lignux/Linux-based
GNU crusade is just petty, and I think the best thing is for package
maintainers to ignore it until RMS gets the message again.

> RMS is annoyed.  He thinks that Linux users are unaware of the
> importance of GNU software in the system they are using, and thinks
> that changing the name of the operating system will help.  He describes
> Linux systems as "Linux-based GNU" systems.  I'd expected him to stop
> when the Hurd was released, and he had a system of his own to call GNU,
> but it seems that he wants to take credit for two OSes now.

IMHO, anyone who doesn't realize their Linux system contains fully as much
GNU code as will compile on it will be confused, rather than enlightened,
by this attempt to rename the OS.

____________________________________________________________________________
I. Dwayne Koonce                                   E-mail:  idk@metronet.com
____________________________________________________________________________
"It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."  --Voltaire